Scientific American endorses Joe Biden

[Elixir]

Yes, you've illustrated something to everybody with a rudimentary grasp of statistics.

I think you flatter yourself - you have yet to demonstrate a rudimentary grasp of statistics.
Go ahead - show your work if you have ever done any. Be sure to include both a classical conclusion as well as what emerges from Bayesian inference, so we can see what kind of weight you give to Trump's past (in)actions.

Too many variables? I guess you would have needed more than the rudimentary grasp that you lay claim to.

Let me see the paper you've written calculating the exact percentage of deaths Trump is responsible for, showing your work.

Why should anyone do that? It is sufficient (for you) to make the bold assertion that Trump is responsible for more than zero and less than 205,301 deaths (as of 9am EST, 9/23/2020). You continue to argue as if anyone here has contradicted your vapid assertion.

 

[Metaphor]

Why should anyone do that? It is sufficient (for you) to make the bold assertion that Trump is responsible for more than zero and less than 205,301 deaths (as of 9am EST, 9/23/2020). You continue to argue as if anyone here has contradicted your vapid assertion.

It wasn't an actual request. I was illustrating to ZiprHead how ridiculous his response was to me.

This ridiculous demand that I produce an estimate of deaths that Trump is responsible for is a worse derail than the previous 18 fucking pages.

 

[Angry Floof]

COVID deaths. What's different about the US? I guess we'll never know.

[WEBM]https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LeadingFrigidAngora-mobile.mp4[/WEBM]

 

[Elixir]

Why should anyone do that? It is sufficient (for you) to make the bold assertion that Trump is responsible for more than zero and less than 205,301 deaths (as of 9am EST, 9/23/2020). You continue to argue as if anyone here has contradicted your vapid assertion.

It wasn't an actual request. I was illustrating to ZiprHead how ridiculous his response was to me.

This ridiculous demand that I produce an estimate of deaths that Trump is responsible for is a worse derail than the previous 18 fucking pages.

Okay, fine. I guess we're all in agreement; Trump is responsible for killing people, but not responsible for killing 205,922 (as of 1:10pm EST, 9/23/2020) people, yet.
I hope he is held to account for killing people.

 

[Elixir]

COVID deaths. What's different about the US? I guess we'll never know.

[WEBM]https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LeadingFrigidAngora-mobile.mp4[/WEBM]

There's another country with a very similar shaped curve, though they got a later start than we did, and never made the token effort at suppression that the US did in late April/May.
What do we have in common with them?
They have a populist autocratic leader who sought to downplay the pandemic and its effects, opposed quarantine measures, fired two health ministers, and still kept downplaying the seriousness of COVID-`19 while his country's death toll increased rapidly.

Probably just a coincidence though... he is likely responsible for a non-zero positive number of deaths, but not all 138,410 of them that have been reported in his country...

 

[Deepak]

Look, downplaying is one thing but the Trump team, under Kushner, were actively making the situation worse - specifically in order to use the effects to their advantage in the election. From blocking the use of PPE stockpiles, bidding against states, and the general graft surrounding any assistance program. It’s not simply stupidity, nor criminal stupidity, but indeed criminality.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/514734-81-nobel-laureate-endorse-bidens-white-house-bid

A total of 81 Nobel laureates endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s White House bid in an open letter released Wednesday, pointing to his “deep appreciation for using science to find solutions.”
The Nobel Prize winners, who have won in chemistry, medicine and physics dating back to 1975, praised Biden for his “willingness to listen to experts” and to back decisions based on science, including during the global coronavirus pandemic. The signatories represent the largest group of Nobel laureates to endorse a candidate for office, according to the Biden campaign.
"At no time in our nation's history has there been a greater need for our leaders to appreciate the value of science in formulating public policy," their letter reads.
ADVERTISEMENT

"During his long record of public service, Joe Biden has consistently demonstrated his willingness to listen to experts, his understanding of the value of international collaboration in research and his respect for the contribution that immigrants make to the intellectual life of our country," they added.

---

Trump has all the scientific knowledge of a twelve year old, semi-literate Afghan goat herd boy. Most of the GOP senators and Congressmen are little better.

 

[Elixir]

Look, downplaying is one thing but the Trump team, under Kushner, were actively making the situation worse - specifically in order to use the effects to their advantage in the election. From blocking the use of PPE stockpiles, bidding against states, and the general graft surrounding any assistance program. It’s not simply stupidity, nor criminal stupidity, but indeed criminality.

Truth. But only "proof" of a non-zero positive integer to represent deaths from the Kushner cause.
But Kushner is only a sub-heading under the main heading of "Trump-induced deaths".
If we started listing all the willing agents of Trump's deadly efforts, and assigned a non-zero number of deaths to each of them, that would be hundreds of deaths right there.
I think that looking at the top five most populated countries and observing that their average death rates for the other four is around a twentieth of that of the US, is probably the best indicator, especially as it is consistent with the "excess death' stat that is bandied about.
Why Meta can't even offer an estimate an order of magnitude, why Jason can't even pick a multiple choice answer for margin of defeat that would bring forth a concession from Trump... I don't know, but it seems to be a "thing" among the libberpublican illuminazi. Mealy-mouthed non-committals and scathing-but-irrational critiques of anyone goring bulls that are sacred to the right, and no real argument...it's kinda weird.

 

[Elixir]

Trump has all some of the scientific knowledge of a twelve year old, semi-literate Afghan goat herd boy. Most of the GOP senators and Congressmen are little better.

I'm sure that any practicing agrarian or herder knows far more about genetics than Donald Trump ever dreamed of.

 

[Copernicus]

Look, downplaying is one thing but the Trump team, under Kushner, were actively making the situation worse - specifically in order to use the effects to their advantage in the election. From blocking the use of PPE stockpiles, bidding against states, and the general graft surrounding any assistance program. It’s not simply stupidity, nor criminal stupidity, but indeed criminality.

Truth. But only "proof" of a non-zero positive integer to represent deaths from the Kushner cause.
But Kushner is only a sub-heading under the main heading of "Trump-induced deaths".
If we started listing all the willing agents of Trump's deadly efforts, and assigned a non-zero number of deaths to each of them, that would be hundreds of deaths right there.
I think that looking at the top five most populated countries and observing that their average death rates for the other four is around a twentieth of that of the US, is probably the best indicator, especially as it is consistent with the "excess death' stat that is bandied about.
Why Meta can't even offer an estimate an order of magnitude, why Jason can't even pick a multiple choice answer for margin of defeat that would bring forth a concession from Trump... I don't know, but it seems to be a "thing" among the libberpublican illuminazi. Mealy-mouthed non-committals and scathing-but-irrational critiques of anyone goring bulls that are sacred to the right, and no real argument...it's kinda weird.

Metaphor launched a baseless straw man argument, defended it almost to death for 18 pages, and then criticized others for stubbornly carrying on about it. Apparently, he was only interested in killing this terrible idea that Trump has been blamed for every single COVID-19 death, which nobody other than he has propped up. Having admitted that Trump is responsible for some deaths, he refuses to explain what he means by that or even give a ballpark guesstimate of the scope of Trump's responsibility. I can't say that I blame him for not wanting to be put in the position of defending what he can't defend, but a better way to avoid that position would be to refrain from defending Donald Trump at all. We all know that he put a straw man out there in an effort to defend him.

The US has about 4% of the world's population and 25% of the COVID-19 infections. That should help us to put the scope of Donald Trump's responsibility in the proper perspective. The per capita death rate (48 per 100K) has been higher in a few other countries. Belgium has a far higher rate, with 87 per 100k. What Trump has failed to do is take effective measures to bring down the rate of infections. In fact, he has resisted them. So we will continue to have a relatively high death rate into the foreseeable future, probably long after Belgium brings its rate down to that of other countries.

The Scientific American endorsement of Joe Biden is not just about COVID-related deaths in the US. It is partly about his handling of the healthcare crisis, but it is generally about his disdain for science, in general.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor launched a baseless straw man argument,

No: there are people on this very board who have attributed every COVID death in America to Trump.

defended it almost to death for 18 pages, and then criticized others for stubbornly carrying on about it. Apparently, he was only interested in killing this terrible idea that Trump has been blamed for every single COVID-19 death, which nobody other than he has propped up. Having admitted that Trump is responsible for some deaths, he refuses to explain what he means by that

What is there to explain? How can that be further clarified?

or even give a ballpark guesstimate of the scope of Trump's responsibility.

That is correct: I have no desire to, or moral obligation to, calculate a number to satisfy you.

 

[laughing dog]

No: there are people on this very board who have attributed every COVID death in America to Trump.



What is there to explain? How can that be further clarified?

or even give a ballpark guesstimate of the scope of Trump's responsibility.

That is correct: I have no desire to, or moral obligation to, calculate a number to satisfy you.

True, but you could be polite enough to discuss it anyway. After all, plenty of posters put up with your ridiculous mono-interpretation of the SA statement about Trump's covid-19 performance.

 

[Metaphor]

No: there are people on this very board who have attributed every COVID death in America to Trump.



What is there to explain? How can that be further clarified?

or even give a ballpark guesstimate of the scope of Trump's responsibility.

That is correct: I have no desire to, or moral obligation to, calculate a number to satisfy you.

True, but you could be polite enough to discuss it anyway. After all, plenty of posters put up with your ridiculous mono-interpretation of the SA statement about Trump's covid-19 performance.

It beggars belief, after I've stated any number I could pull out would be epidemiologically uninformed, people want a number from me anyway.

 

[laughing dog]

True, but you could be polite enough to discuss it anyway. After all, plenty of posters put up with your ridiculous mono-interpretation of the SA statement about Trump's covid-19 performance.

It beggars belief, after I've stated any number I could pull out would be epidemiologically uninformed, people want a number from me anyway.

You had not trouble making an uninformed argument about SA, so clearly "uninformed" is not a problem. Besides, no one is asking for an accurate estimate - view it as some sort of Bayesian estimate.

 

[Metaphor]

You had not trouble making an uninformed argument about SA, so clearly "uninformed" is not a problem.

Right. So, you resent when I offer my uninformed opinions normally, but when my opinion would be so uninformed even I recognise it, you now want my opinion?

Besides, no one is asking for an accurate estimate - view it as some sort of Bayesian estimate.

What possible end could an uninformed guesstimate serve, except to satisfy Copernicus's revenge boner?

I'm not going to give an estimate because I don't know enough to give a meaningful one, and I know I don't know enough.

 

[laughing dog]

You had not trouble making an uninformed argument about SA, so clearly "uninformed" is not a problem.

Right. So, you resent when I offer my uninformed opinions normally, but when my opinion would be so uninformed even I recognise it, you now want my opinion?

I could care less about your estimate. Nor do I necessarily resent your uninformed opinions. Apparently other posters are interested in your estimate.

What possible end could an uninformed guesstimate serve, except to satisfy Copernicus's revenge boner?

I believe there was at least one other poster interested in your estimate. I doubt Copernicus has a revenge boner - if my reading of his posting history is accurate, he was simply trying to engage you in a relevant polite discussion.

I'm not going to give an estimate because I don't know enough to give a meaningful one, and I know I don't know enough.

Now you are modest.

 

[Angry Floof]

It beggars belief, after I've stated any number I could pull out would be epidemiologically uninformed, people want a number from me anyway.

What if a doctor failed to tell you that you had cancer because he didn't want to panic you and then you died when you could have survived with treatment? That's exactly what Trump did.

So here's the only question you need to answer, and then you can damn well stop hijacking this thread to feed your bottomless need for attention:

How many of those lives would be OK to lose before you would hold Trump accountable?

 

[Angry Floof]

It beggars belief, after I've stated any number I could pull out would be epidemiologically uninformed, people want a number from me anyway.

What if a doctor failed to tell you that you had cancer because he didn't want to panic you and then you died when you could have survived with treatment? That's exactly what Trump did.

So here's the only question you need to answer, and then you can damn well stop hijacking this thread to feed your bottomless need for attention:

How many of those lives would be OK to lose before you would hold Trump accountable?

[MENTION=103]Metaphor[/MENTION], how many?

 

[Metaphor]

It beggars belief, after I've stated any number I could pull out would be epidemiologically uninformed, people want a number from me anyway.

What if a doctor failed to tell you that you had cancer because he didn't want to panic you and then you died when you could have survived with treatment? That's exactly what Trump did.

That isn't what Trump did.

In fact, I don't even understand how you came up with this analogy, as if public health were comparable to individual health.

To address your scenario: the doctor who did that, from the details you've given, would have been scandalously irresponsible.

Your scenario implies the doctor knew I had cancer, knew I could have had treatment that might have saved me, and decided that the 'panic' I would experience is worse than the certainty of losing my life? If a member of my family died because the doctor did that, I'd sue him to ruination.

So here's the only question you need to answer, and then you can damn well stop hijacking this thread to feed your bottomless need for attention:

How many of those lives would be OK to lose before you would hold Trump accountable?

I reject your analogy, but the doctor in your scenario would be responsible for the cancer death.

 

[Angry Floof]

That isn't what Trump did.

In fact, I don't even understand how you came up with this analogy, as if public health were comparable to individual health.

To address your scenario: the doctor who did that, from the details you've given, would have been scandalously irresponsible.

Your scenario implies the doctor knew I had cancer, knew I could have had treatment that might have saved me, and decided that the 'panic' I would experience is worse than the certainty of losing my life? If a member of my family died because the doctor did that, I'd sue him to ruination.

So here's the only question you need to answer, and then you can damn well stop hijacking this thread to feed your bottomless need for attention:

How many of those lives would be OK to lose before you would hold Trump accountable?

I reject your analogy, but the doctor in your scenario would be responsible for the cancer death.

This is some serious denial. What is so hard about holding power accountable? What would it take for you to hold Trump accountable for his terrible, stupid, callous choices from his place of immense power?